[FEAT BC Admin]

In this topic area, discussion is about the fight to secure Government funding for your A.B.A. treatment program. It is also the place to talk about your thoughts and ideas about how to establish new Government programs specifically designed for autism treatment.

This is the place to hear input from parents who have fought for funding and won, as well as those who have fought for funding and would like to share their horror stories. There is a tendency to not share success stories once funding is secured. Please fight that tendency. By sharing our experience, we all become stronger.

 

---

—-By FEAT BC (Freeman) on Saturday, January 3, 1998 – 03:16 pm:

-Hi everyone!

These are some things to think about in your dealings with government to help you to obtain support for your child’s Autism Treatment Program. These are my personal opinions and do not represent those of FEAT of BC or any other organization.

Many of these observations are based on my personal experiences (and I believe it poetic justice to help every parent avoid being systematically abused by their social worker the way I was).

Good luck to everyone! (Let’s all pull back the curtain on the Wizard of OZ).

Sabrina

 

---

How To Fight for Funding for Autism Treatment and Appropriate School Placement

1. Establish a Paper Trail

Always take notes, documenting major points of all conversations with government and school officials.

This includes casual, in person conversations with social workers as well as ALL telephone conversations. All key points of discussion must be written down in your notes including the date and time of the discussion. This includes what was agreed upon, as well as what was not agreed upon.

Then the notes should be used to write a letter recapping the substance and content of the conversation. This letter must then be mailed or faxed to the person with whom you had the conversation. In addition, a copy must be kept in your file (see section on the icci game).

Why?

It is important to formalize the interaction between you and Government officials. In addition, everyone is put on notice that they must closely adhere to their responsibilities, regulations and laws., Furthermore, they must then consider the paper trail you have created. This lets everyone know that the interaction can become public and that any abuses of power and authority can be formally appealed and/or publicized.

In other words, they canit use discretion unfairly under the cloak of secrecy.

2. Submit all Requests in Writing

All your requests for your child must be submitted formally in writing with a copy included in your file and a copy, if necessary, sent to their immediate superiors.

3. Set Deadlines for Action

All formal requests for action must have a reasonable deadline set for that action. If no action or response is received by the deadline you have set (two weeks for example), then you will interpret the lack of response as a formal declination (a formal NO) of your requests.

Why Set Deadlines?

When bureaucrats do not want to do something, they will stall by ignoring you and your request. (As an aside, in the study of the bureaucracy, this is known as ithe power to do nothingi). They can string you along for years. When you have determined that the person you are interacting with is not inclined to help you or is not dealing in good faith, then you must take the initiative and formally label his/her behavior as obstructionist and de facto as a declination (a NO to your requests). This allows you to move to the next level of authority on your timetable to present your case. This takes the power to do nothing away from the bureaucrat with whom you are dealing. Simple stated, a bureaucrat who stalls and does nothing becomes irrelevant (use your invisible spray) and you move on to the next level of authority.

How to icci?

A cc. is a copy of your letter sent to someone other than the person you are writing. You put the cc. at the bottom left-hand corner of your letter followed by 2 spaces and the name of the person or people to whom you want to send a copy of the letter.

Who to icci to?

Sometimes it is best not to icci at all, especially in the early stages of the relationship (for example, your first letter to a social worker requesting assistance). This gives them the opportunity to do the right thing and does not present you as an overly combative person. When you start to run into problems, it is a good idea to send the icci to the 2 immediate superiors of the person you are having problems with. We do not recommend icciing all the way up the chain of command, since you want to give them a chance to solve the problem at the local level.

Why send a icci copy?

The reason for playing the icci game is that you want your interactions with the official to be known to his superior and possibly to other organizations so that 1) their action or inaction becomes a matter of record and 2) the individual knows he is being monitored. This helps minimize abuses of power and authority and helps encourage the official to meet their obligations and do the right thing.

What is the sequence of letters?

Find out the chain of command of the particular bureaucracy you are battling.

TOP

Minister
Deputy Minister
Children’s Ministry’s local region chain of command, all the way down to the District Supervisor
and Social Worker
Contacts can be found at the government directory: http://www.dir.gov.bc.ca/

BOTTOM

Start at the bottom and climb. At the Regional Operating Officer (ROO) level (once you have been declined) you have to decide whether to jump up to the top, threaten and then go to the media, or both. A word of wisdom: DO NOT BLUFF. If you are not willing to go all the way, they will ‘smell’ this. You must be prepared to take it right up to the Minister and beyond.

Documentation from Experts:

In your arsenal to fight for your child, it is wise to get his/her pediatrician and/or psychiatrist to write a letter on your childis behalf. In addition, any other experts who know your child and are sympathetic to what you are trying to do should become involved.

When to hire a lawyer?

If money is not an issue, you can hire a lawyer when you get to the area manager level. Make sure that you have a paper trail so the lawyer has something to work with. Also, have the lawyer give F.E.A.T. of B.C. a call, and we will send him/her information that will help.

If money is an issue (as it is for most of us running autism treatment programs), you might want to hire a lawyer once you have been turned down by the Minister.

How to hire a lawyer?

The type of lawyer needed is a litigator, or trial lawyer. S/he does not need to be an expert in autism, or special needs; s/he needs to be experienced in suing governments, and enjoys being in court. Word of mouth is a good way to find a lawyer.

Topic

[Maureen St. Cyr]

May I wade into this one? Thank you.

Andy Danyliu wrote:

All I said and still believe to be true is that the NDP believe that we (I too am a parent of an autistic child) are "litigious zealots". I never said that I agree with their mistaken opinions.

I'm sure Sabrina accepts your apology, Andy, but you miss the point, which is: It does not matter what the NDP thinks. And personally I doubt they even consider us "litigious zealots" — more like "pains in the butt." But, you see, I don't care. They or their successors will do the right thing, or they will suffer the consequences, be that being voted out of office or taken to court. They did the wrong thing, pure and simple…and compounded that wrong thing with never once owning up to their mistakes and correcting them, even after having that mistake demonstrated to them over and over and over again.

So fine, it looks like the Liberals are going to have their day in power. I am cautiously optimistic about that, because my own experiences with them in opposition have been positive. I had the great pleasure of accompanying Sabrina and Bev to Victoria to present that little petition the NDP ignored. We were treated with respect and understanding and a great deal of class by Ted Nebbeling, and I came away from that experience not only with new reasons to despise the party in power, but also with hopes that their successors might not be so laissez faire about our children's rights.

I am simply suggesting that we talk with the politicians we expect to form the next government to show them what reasonable people we are.

With all due respect, Andy, what in the wide world of sports do you think we HAVE been doing all this time? Do you believe we have waited until the dying days of the Gang of NDP Thugs to chat up the Liberal cavalry? I don't know about you, but I know several FEAT parents who have gone out of their way to enlighten and enlist the Liberals in opposition, which is what led to some of the actions that Sabrina already listed for you.

So by all means, Andy, go right ahead. If you haven't done so already, please do phone your local Liberal MLA or candidate, and explain to them why children with autism deserve to have their rights respected. You might point them at the FEAT website where they can download all kinds of useful information, if they don't already have it. That's http://www.featbc.org — open 24 hours a day.

I was trying to say as someone who spent eight years as an elected official is that cooperation is usually more effective than confrontation.

Yes, cooperation is more effective than confrontation, and we are more than willing to cooperate with anyone who will legitimately work for what is needed for our children. And I will personally confront with my dying breath the miserable self-serving egocentric twits who would deny my child a life because it might put 30 cents into the pocket of someone without an NDP membership card.

It's hard enough dealing with autism without picking fights with other parents in the same boat and it was never my intent to pick one this time.

You said it, Andy.

[FEAT BC Admin]

MESSAGE FORWARDED FROM Andre Danyliu,
_________________________________________________

Subject: Re: Room Three: Discussions about Government Topics
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:10:37 -0800
From: Andre Danyliu

Re Sabrana Freeman's Analysis of my Earlier Message

All I said and still believe to be true is that the NDP believe that we
(I too am a parent of an autistic child) are "litigious zealots". I
never said that I agree with their mistaken opinions. Furthermore I have
never been a supporter apologist or sympathizer of the NDP.
The parents who could afford to take the NDP to court performed a
valuable service for their children and all the children living with
autism.
I am simply suggesting that we talk with the politicians we expect to
form the next government to show them what reasonable people we are.
It serves no useful purpose for us to analyze each others suggestions
and draw conclusions which do not reflect what we are trying to say to
add to a constructive and co operative dialogue. I salute FEAT! I salute
Ms. Freeman for all her work all I was trying to say as someone who
spent eight years as an elected official is that co operation is usually
more effective than confrontation.
It's hard enough dealing with autism without picking fights with other
parents in the same boat and it was never my intent to pick one this
time.

Feat BC Discussion Board wrote:

> ————————————————————
> FeatBC Discussion Board: Room Three: Discussions about
> Government Topics
> ————————————————————
>
> By Sabrina Freeman (Freeman) on Friday, February 23, 2001 –
> 12:27 pm:
>
> I'd like to respond to Andy Danylou's post suggesting FEAT
> BC is comprised of “litigious zealots”, but first, I'd just
> like to comment on how great it is to have this forum for
> exchange of opinions, no matter how divergent those views
> may be.
> ______________________________________
> Andre Danyliu wrote:
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > Barbara has a good point.
> >
> > We should ask to appear before the liberal caucus to
> provide them with
> > facts about Autism and establish lines of communication so
> they don't
> > see us as litigious zealots the way the NDP obviously do.
> > We need to be politely firm; state our case and work with
> them. Perhaps
> > a task force to implement that which the courts and common
> sense
> > dictate?.
> >
> > I'm prepared to help in this effort if there are others
> who agree.
> ______________________________________
>
> Andy seems to insinuate that FEAT BC hasn't put enough
> effort into opening lines of “communication” with the NDP
> government, and that parents who brought this lawsuit are
> trigger happy and did not exhaust all options before firing
> the legal bullet.
>
> A closer look at the record indicates the label of
> “litigious zealots” would be a grossly inaccurate
> characterization of the families who brought on this legal
> action. Sincere efforts at working with government have
> spanned many years prior to the court case, both on the part
> of FEAT BC and the hundreds of families who individually
> have “communicated” with unresponsive civil servants and
> government Ministers.
>
> Over several years before the writ was issued …
> a. A detailed FEAT BC information packet was HAND delivered
> to Minister Joy MacPhail outlining urgent policy reforms
> required in autism treatment in 1996. Our analysis and
> recommendations were ignored.
>
> b. Detailed FEAT information briefs were sent to EVERY
> member of government including the Deputy Minister of MCF,
> Ministers of Health, Children and Families, Premier Glen
> Clark, and senior level civil servants. Our analysis and
> recommendations were ignored.
>
> c. A FEAT BC delegation went to Victoria carrying an 8200
> signature petition of concerned British Columbians asking
> that children with autism be included in Medicare — it was
> presented by a Liberal MLA to the government on the
> legislature floor. Government’s response? A shallow speech
> from a back-bench NDP MLA essentially stating Lovaas
> Treatment is a gold plated American treatment and in these
> times of fiscal problems, government can’t afford it.
>
> The same 8200 signature petition was hand delivered to the
> Minister of Health, Penny Priddy in her office in the
> parliament buildings. The petition and our legitimate
> grievance were ignored. The “communication” went nowhere.
>
> The response of the Minister for Children and Families to
> the petition? She dodged responsibility: “that’s something
> that the Minister of Health would have to look at”. The
> Minister of Health pointed fingers at the Minister of
> Education. The CBC TV interview can be seen at the web site
> below:
>
> http://www.featbc.org/files/media/video/CBCNEWS_06_01_98.ram
>
> d. We engaged the Minister of Children and Families of the
> day, Lois Boon, in direct debate in parliament during budget
> estimates, through one of our FEAT members’ MLAs — Rick
> Thorpe. Not surprisingly, no government policy change
> resulted — our children's treatment needs were still
> ignored.
>
> e. Dozens of letters from our grassroots membership, all
> produced in court affidavits, were written to high levels of
> government pleading for help to fund their treatment
> programs — none was forthcoming. Years of patronizing,
> empty, boilerplate responses from intransigent, unconcerned
> bureaucrats and politicians is all that our families
> received.
>
> f. A direct appeal was made to Health Minister Joy MacPhail
> on behalf of a FEAT representative by Federal M.P. John
> Reynolds. The government's response was that Autism is not
> a Health issue nor a Ministry of Health responsibility. She
> passed us back to the Children’s Ministry and expressed no
> government inclination to co-operate regarding our
> legitimate grievance.
>
> When did we start to see ANY Government attention paid to
> autism at all?
>
> Well, it started after FEAT BC helped expose the exodus of
> parents to Alberta (The BCTV story “Leaving BC for Health
> Care”
> p://www.featbc.org/files/media/video/BCTVNEWS_11_26_97.ram).
> Shortly after the story, government announced it would
> convene an Autism Workshop “to guide and direct policy”.
> The workshop result? A decision to create an Autism Action
> Plan. Result of the Action Plan? An MCF booklet on its
> “services” and how to access them … and a commitment to
> conduct further planning and reviews.
>
> After years of government inaction, and parents being
> rebuffed by intransigent bureaucrats, a writ was issued in
> BC Supreme Court. Seventy-Two hours before the court case
> was to start, the Ministry for Children and Families
> announced an Autism Pilot Project. Coincidence? Was it a
> genuine effort to help kids with autism or simply an attempt
> to buy an argument in court i.e. “we need to show the judge
> government really DOES have something other than
> baby-sitting services or we’re toast”. Regardless, it
> appears as though parents being “litigious” is what spurred
> SOME kind of government action more substantial than the
> Action Plan’s MCF booklet on services.
>
> The Pilot Project was not allowed in the court case because
> the Deputy Minister of MCF refused to go on the stand for
> cross examination. We can speculate as to what he was
> afraid of.
>
> So what did government do next? After losing the July 2000
> court ruling, they had a neat idea: “why don’t we take the
> old Pilot Project, rename it and get it introduced in court
> for the November hearings on remedy for the constitutional
> violation? Let’s call it something impressive like the
> Provincial Center for Autism and Related Disorders — the
> P-CARD. Let’s tell the judge the new autism program will do
> what she said we need to do, provide “Early Intensive
> Behavioural Intervention”. Yah, that sounds good. Let’s put
> that on the cover and run with it”.
>
> The P-CARD leaves 2 out 3 three kids under 6 out of the
> program — even by end of 2002. It leaves 100% of kids over
> 6 out — permanently. It has no components of genuine
> autism treatment. It only accepts a government diagnosis —
> your pediatrician’s diagnosis is not valid. But we did
> “galvanize” the government to do something — other than the
> booklet of course.
>
> Rather than being unfairly characterized as litigious
> zealots, I would say we are a movement for social justice —
> I am proud of that. We are defending the constitutional
> rights of our children.
>
> Our very small numbers mean we have political power that
> approaches zero, especially against a stubborn, intransigent
> government and a vindictive bureaucracy.
>
> It may not surprise some of you that the Supreme Court of
> Canada has already recognized the unfortunate situation
> where a bureaucracy violates the rights of the disabled.
> The court states, “In my opinion, groups that have
> historically been the target of discrimination cannot be
> expected to wait patiently for the protection of their human
> dignity and equal rights while governments move toward
> reform one step at a time. If the infringement of the rights
> and freedoms of these groups is permitted to persist while
> governments fail to pursue equality diligently, then the
> guarantees of the Charter will be reduced to little more
> than empty words.” Iacobucci, Vriend v. Alberta.
>
> In our case, we have taken a virtually powerless,
> marginalized minority of disabled children before the courts
> so as to bestow upon them the same rights the majority
> enjoys to publicly funded health care.
>
> Going to court was a last resort, not the precipitous act of
> hot-headed “litigious zealots”. Do we want to work with
> government? Absolutely. But we have no partner who wants
> to work in good faith. What we have now is a government
> trying to pass off a hopelessly flawed pilot project as
> fulfillment of what the court has directed.
>
> We hope a change in government will improve things for our
> children; however, their constitutional rights — firmly
> declared in court — must not fall victim to the vagaries of
> BC’s polarized politics. Governments come and go and so too
> their policies. Our children’s rights are too important.
> Their right to health care must be entrenched to ensure that
> the words of Justice Emmett Hall are not empty: "Our
> proudest achievement in the well-being of Canadians has been
> in asserting that illness is burden enough in itself.
> Financial ruin must not compound it. That is why Medicare
> has been called a sacred trust and we must not allow that
> trust to be betrayed." Justice Emmett Hall.
>
> I quite agree with Andy Danylou that all FEAT members should
> visit and speak to as many Liberal MLAs as possible. We
> have already met with key Liberals on several occasions and
> have found a receptive ear. My feeling is that the more
> Liberals who truly understand the injustice and are touched
> by parents of children with autism, or those children
> themselves, the more quickly they will rectify the
> discriminatory, second class status imposed by government on
> children with autism. Until our children's treatment is
> covered by the health care system, the fight for their
> constitutional rights will continue.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> Sabrina

[Sabrina Freeman]

I'd like to respond to Andy Danylou's post suggesting FEAT BC is comprised of “litigious zealots”, but first, I'd just like to comment on how great it is to have this forum for exchange of opinions, no matter how divergent those views may be.
______________________________________
Andre Danyliu wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> Barbara has a good point.
>
> We should ask to appear before the liberal caucus to provide them with
> facts about Autism and establish lines of communication so they don't
> see us as litigious zealots the way the NDP obviously do.
> We need to be politely firm; state our case and work with them. Perhaps
> a task force to implement that which the courts and common sense
> dictate?.
>
> I'm prepared to help in this effort if there are others who agree.
______________________________________

Andy seems to insinuate that FEAT BC hasn't put enough effort into opening lines of “communication” with the NDP government, and that parents who brought this lawsuit are trigger happy and did not exhaust all options before firing the legal bullet.

A closer look at the record indicates the label of “litigious zealots” would be a grossly inaccurate characterization of the families who brought on this legal action. Sincere efforts at working with government have spanned many years prior to the court case, both on the part of FEAT BC and the hundreds of families who individually have “communicated” with unresponsive civil servants and government Ministers.

Over several years before the writ was issued …
a. A detailed FEAT BC information packet was HAND delivered to Minister Joy MacPhail outlining urgent policy reforms required in autism treatment in 1996. Our analysis and recommendations were ignored.

b. Detailed FEAT information briefs were sent to EVERY member of government including the Deputy Minister of MCF, Ministers of Health, Children and Families, Premier Glen Clark, and senior level civil servants. Our analysis and recommendations were ignored.

c. A FEAT BC delegation went to Victoria carrying an 8200 signature petition of concerned British Columbians asking that children with autism be included in Medicare — it was presented by a Liberal MLA to the government on the legislature floor. Government’s response? A shallow speech from a back-bench NDP MLA essentially stating Lovaas Treatment is a gold plated American treatment and in these times of fiscal problems, government can’t afford it.

The same 8200 signature petition was hand delivered to the Minister of Health, Penny Priddy in her office in the parliament buildings. The petition and our legitimate grievance were ignored. The “communication” went nowhere.

The response of the Minister for Children and Families to the petition? She dodged responsibility: “that’s something that the Minister of Health would have to look at”. The Minister of Health pointed fingers at the Minister of Education. The CBC TV interview can be seen at the web site below:

http://www.featbc.org/files/media/video/CBCNEWS_06_01_98.ram

d. We engaged the Minister of Children and Families of the day, Lois Boon, in direct debate in parliament during budget estimates, through one of our FEAT members’ MLAs — Rick Thorpe. Not surprisingly, no government policy change resulted — our children's treatment needs were still ignored.

e. Dozens of letters from our grassroots membership, all produced in court affidavits, were written to high levels of government pleading for help to fund their treatment programs — none was forthcoming. Years of patronizing, empty, boilerplate responses from intransigent, unconcerned bureaucrats and politicians is all that our families received.

f. A direct appeal was made to Health Minister Joy MacPhail on behalf of a FEAT representative by Federal M.P. John Reynolds. The government's response was that Autism is not a Health issue nor a Ministry of Health responsibility. She passed us back to the Children’s Ministry and expressed no government inclination to co-operate regarding our legitimate grievance.

When did we start to see ANY Government attention paid to autism at all?

Well, it started after FEAT BC helped expose the exodus of parents to Alberta (The BCTV story “Leaving BC for Health Care” http://www.featbc.org/files/media/video/BCTVNEWS_11_26_97.ram). Shortly after the story, government announced it would convene an Autism Workshop “to guide and direct policy”. The workshop result? A decision to create an Autism Action Plan. Result of the Action Plan? An MCF booklet on its “services” and how to access them … and a commitment to conduct further planning and reviews.

After years of government inaction, and parents being rebuffed by intransigent bureaucrats, a writ was issued in BC Supreme Court. Seventy-Two hours before the court case was to start, the Ministry for Children and Families announced an Autism Pilot Project. Coincidence? Was it a genuine effort to help kids with autism or simply an attempt to buy an argument in court i.e. “we need to show the judge government really DOES have something other than baby-sitting services or we’re toast”. Regardless, it appears as though parents being “litigious” is what spurred SOME kind of government action more substantial than the Action Plan’s MCF booklet on services.

The Pilot Project was not allowed in the court case because the Deputy Minister of MCF refused to go on the stand for cross examination. We can speculate as to what he was afraid of.

So what did government do next? After losing the July 2000 court ruling, they had a neat idea: “why don’t we take the old Pilot Project, rename it and get it introduced in court for the November hearings on remedy for the constitutional violation? Let’s call it something impressive like the Provincial Center for Autism and Related Disorders — the P-CARD. Let’s tell the judge the new autism program will do what she said we need to do, provide “Early Intensive Behavioural Intervention”. Yah, that sounds good. Let’s put that on the cover and run with it”.

The P-CARD leaves 2 out 3 three kids under 6 out of the program — even by end of 2002. It leaves 100% of kids over 6 out — permanently. It has no components of genuine autism treatment. It only accepts a government diagnosis — your pediatrician’s diagnosis is not valid. But we did “galvanize” the government to do something — other than the booklet of course.

Rather than being unfairly characterized as litigious zealots, I would say we are a movement for social justice — I am proud of that. We are defending the constitutional rights of our children.

Our very small numbers mean we have political power that approaches zero, especially against a stubborn, intransigent government and a vindictive bureaucracy.

It may not surprise some of you that the Supreme Court of Canada has already recognized the unfortunate situation where a bureaucracy violates the rights of the disabled. The court states, “In my opinion, groups that have historically been the target of discrimination cannot be expected to wait patiently for the protection of their human dignity and equal rights while governments move toward reform one step at a time. If the infringement of the rights and freedoms of these groups is permitted to persist while governments fail to pursue equality diligently, then the guarantees of the Charter will be reduced to little more than empty words.” Iacobucci, Vriend v. Alberta.

In our case, we have taken a virtually powerless, marginalized minority of disabled children before the courts so as to bestow upon them the same rights the majority enjoys to publicly funded health care.

Going to court was a last resort, not the precipitous act of hot-headed “litigious zealots”. Do we want to work with government? Absolutely. But we have no partner who wants to work in good faith. What we have now is a government trying to pass off a hopelessly flawed pilot project as fulfillment of what the court has directed.

We hope a change in government will improve things for our children; however, their constitutional rights — firmly declared in court — must not fall victim to the vagaries of BC’s polarized politics. Governments come and go and so too their policies. Our children’s rights are too important. Their right to health care must be entrenched to ensure that the words of Justice Emmett Hall are not empty: "Our proudest achievement in the well-being of Canadians has been in asserting that illness is burden enough in itself. Financial ruin must not compound it. That is why Medicare has been called a sacred trust and we must not allow that trust to be betrayed." Justice Emmett Hall.

I quite agree with Andy Danylou that all FEAT members should visit and speak to as many Liberal MLAs as possible. We have already met with key Liberals on several occasions and have found a receptive ear. My feeling is that the more Liberals who truly understand the injustice and are touched by parents of children with autism, or those children themselves, the more quickly they will rectify the discriminatory, second class status imposed by government on children with autism. Until our children's treatment is covered by the health care system, the fight for their constitutional rights will continue.

Just my two cents.

Sabrina

[FEAT BC Admin]

MESSAGE FORWARD FROM: Andre Danyliu, andre_danyliu@telus.net

_________________________________________________

Hello

Barbara has a good point.

We should ask to appear before the liberal caucus to provide them with
facts about Autism and establish lines of communication so they don't
see us as litigious zealots the way the NDP obviously do.
We need to be politely firm; state our case and work with them. Perhaps
a task force to implement that which the courts and common sense
dictate?.

I'm prepared to help in this effort if there are others who agree.

FeatBC Discussion Board wrote:

> ————————————————————
> FeatBC Discussion Board: Room Three: Discussions about
> Government Topics
> ————————————————————
>
> By Barbara Rodrigues (Rodrigues) on Wednesday, February 14,
> 2001 – 12:48 pm:
>
> Hi Everyone:
>
> I was wondering what thoughts everyone has on the upcoming
> election. Does anyone think a change in Government will
> help our kids and push through individualized funding for
> proper 'Lovaas' ABA programs and not these great little
> 'eclectic' programs that the Government's putting together.
> I mean, yes we will get a different Government but the
> people in the Ministries are not going to change, right?
>
> What I am asking is how do we go about getting a firm
> answer/commitment from the new party in order to see some
> postive changes for our kids. Now, I know our MLA has been
> greatly supportive, etc. but are things really going to
> change in terms of funding for our kids if the Government is
> changed?
> What should we do in terms of trying to make that a reality?
>
> Thoughts/suggestions?
>
> Barbara
> Jeremy's Mom
>

[Isaac]

To all FEAT BC e-mail list subscribers:

An appeal was formally filed today against the BC Government in the ongoing struggle to secure publicly funded, medically necessary autism treatment for children with autism.

A portion of today’s FEAT BC press release is below. The full release can be downloaded via the link in this post.

Regards,
Isaac (Miki’s Dad)

____________________________________________
After winning a landmark judgment against the provincial government in BC Supreme Court, the families of children with autism have been forced to file a Notice of Appeal today against the approved remedy which heaps more injustice on defenceless children.
____________________________________________

The link below downloads the complete FEAT BC press release:

https://featbc.org/downloads/FEATbc.release_02_21_01.pdf

[David and Barbara McLeod]

Hi everyone,

Does anyone have a taped copy of the CBC interview? or know how to get a transcript copy? My audio is not working!

Thanks,
Barbara

[Barbara Rodrigues]

Thanks Isaac for posting that re: radio show.

Way to go Jean! You were fantastic! Amazing! Very powerful! Gotta listen to it again….

Barbara

[Isaac]

Today on the “Daybreak” show, CBC radio aired a piece on government’s new, so-called “intensive, behavioural”, autism intervention project.

Robin Syme, a senior official from the Children’s Ministry, (A/Director, Child, Family and Community Living) described the autism project and her view regarding the most recent BC Supreme Court ruling.

Jean Lewis, FEAT BC Director, presented FEAT BC’s position on the government autism project.

It’s worth a listen. The program can be heard at the following address http://www.featbc.org/files/media/radio/autism.ram

Thank you Jean. Outstanding job!

Isaac (Miki’s Dad)

[Barbara Rodrigues]

Hi Everyone:

I was wondering what thoughts everyone has on the upcoming election. Does anyone think a change in Government will help our kids and push through individualized funding for proper 'Lovaas' ABA programs and not these great little 'eclectic' programs that the Government's putting together. I mean, yes we will get a different Government but the people in the Ministries are not going to change, right?

What I am asking is how do we go about getting a firm answer/commitment from the new party in order to see some postive changes for our kids. Now, I know our MLA has been greatly supportive, etc. but are things really going to change in terms of funding for our kids if the Government is changed?
What should we do in terms of trying to make that a reality?

Thoughts/suggestions?

Barbara
Jeremy's Mom

[Deleted User]

Justice Allan's decision was made public last week. I am numb – it is a very disappointing response for us. In my worst case scenario I could not have predicted this response. We are back to the drawing board, and depending on the advice of our lawyers, perhaps back in court.

An interesting world where there can be talk of $150 m in damages to a private lumber company for past actions on the part of the government juxtaposed to a supposition of "good faith" on the part of the government to do what is right for children with autism. Justice Allan's comments "crediting" families who have undertaken these programs on behalf of their children is feint praise. There is no victory in a finding of breach of charter with no obligation to remedy for all children. In the words of that famous philosopher Bill Gates "Rule Number 1 – Life is not fair – get used to it."

Tomorrow the sun will shine. "If it is to be it's up to me." We were just hoping to find a cleared path for some of the journey.

B

[Author]

Replies